I think the real question here is, why are high schools in America, including most private schools, so very bad? Why are they bad now, and why were they bad 20 years ago?
I don’t want to get into a debate about school vouchers or anything. It’s just that it boggles my mind how badly school is taught. Where do they get these people? Some of the teachers I had, and some of the teachers I hear people describe, are so very bad that it’s hard to imagine how someone could be so bad without actually making a deliberate attempt to ruin children’s education. I mean, think about it: you want to make absolutely sure that kids learn nothing about history and absolutely hate the subject. How to do it? Hmmmm… I know- pick the most irrelevant trivia possible, and make their grade dependent on their ability to memorize it. How to make kids hate math? Send teenagers through rinky-dink speed math contests. Spelling? Ah, our master plan: the spelling bee…
It’s frustrating to see the public running to solutions for the “educational crisis” (now no doubt now several decades old) which seem guaranteed to make things worse. From what I hear, schooling these days consists of rote memorization of materials that will be on the standardized exam.
That’s a good question. I went to schools with a good reputation, too (real estate ads for houses in the district would start out with “XXX Schools!” on the first line before they said anything about the house)–I’d hate to imagine going to those other schools that are considered to be “mediocre” or “bad”.
I would guess that some of the blame would lie in low teacher salaries. Would you advise a kid who is good at math and science to become a math or science teacher? Probably not. You’d advise him or her to get the same number of years of education and get one of those jobs in industry that pays about twice as much. It seems most of the people who go into teaching are either really dedicated to teaching and the lousy pay doesn’t matter (for now) or they couldn’t hack it as something else, so they decided to give teaching a go. I would guess that the latter group is larger.
My mother-in-law is a high school teacher, and she says that her superintendent and principal are always jerking her around, and they get annoyed with her for trying new things. She’s really burnt out, and I’d hate to be one of her students this year. Perhaps other high schools have lousy “administrative culture” as well.
Also, in high school you have the problem of teaching many kids who really don’t want to be there, anyway. Either that’s a challenge, or it burns the teacher out–and either way, it’s a major distraction for those students who really do want to be there.
Can you explain to me, Byzantine, what is incorrect about my post’s heading, and why it is incorrect?
Knowing the attention spans of most people, would you want to title a thread “Which school subject do you believe is not adequately taught?”
Besides, that title has a different meaning from my own. Mine asks for the subject which is taught least best (take that, Grammar Gestapo! ), while your suggestion merely asks for any subject which is taught poorly.
I have to say that science is generally taught very poorly, because it often relies on math. When a student partially writes off math (“I can’t do this; it’s too hard”), they often lose science entirely. For example (and I expect better than average results from this group), a quick test:
What is the temperature of ice?
For everyboy who first thought 32 F/ 0C, this is my point…
BlackKnight – I can explain, do you happen to have an hour or two free? Okay, fine, give me five minutes… now listen up!
Look, hon, “post’s heading” in and of itself is incorrect. “Post’s” as if it owns something or as if it was a contraction of “Post is”: It owns nothing. Nor is it a contraction of Post and is. Let’s start there. You should have said (this is assuming you were taught correct English usage) “what is incorrect about my post heading, and why it is incorrect?”
Okay, now that I’ve bashed your question, let’s get back to the original post. What’s wrong with the line, “Which school subject is taught worst?”
The problem with that is in structure. I was assuming, from the way you framed that sentence, that you were automatically drawing attention to English structure. Hey, now, I thought you were being funny. Obviously, you weren’t.
You were very serious in your question of what subject was taught worst…
And again I have to say English. As a FIRST language!
Now, if you would like to spend another hour with me I suggest we move on to bigger and better subjects. I also suggest you wear leather. And knee guards. Trust me, you’ll need them!
evilbeth – ah! My evil seduction plan is working! And, while I titillate you I can also teach English! Oh, yes, my evil plan of lust and correct English is working! I will rule the fully communicating world soon! Lust in the dust?! BWHA HA HA! I will have lust in the correctly spelled dust soon!
Even though I received NOTHING in the way of a useful math education in high school, I have to vote HISTORY, because throughout junior high, high school, and college, it was consistently taught poorly.
Most of the classes consisted of names and dates presented as a list. My high school world history class concentrated on one country per time period. China first, then Egypt, then Rome, then (after skipping several centuries) England and France, then Spain exploring everything, and then everything was US history. I doubt that most of the kids in my classes at the time even knew that Ireland, Korea, or Zimbabwe even existed.
Then I went to college. I enrolled in a class described as “American History to 1900”. The professor spent SIX WEEKS teaching about the Puritans in 17th and 18th century New England (my GOD, what a dismal group of people!), and exactly one hour each on the American Revolution and the Civil War. The westward expansion and wars against the Native American tribes got a total of two lectures, and you’d have thought that the first Indians were encountered around 1870 from the crap we were “taught”. I’ve never felt so cheated.
Everything I’ve learned about history is what I’ve read on my own.
I have to add a vote for Art. I guess I had some good art classes (especially in grade school) but when I was older, and was getting really interested in art, school was USELESS.
It was because (in my opinion) art class was a “filler” class for some students. Just something to take to get the credits, and not have to work too hard. The teacher spent time just keeping these artistically uninterested kids in check, and creating projects that were not too difficult for them. Sort of catering to the lowest common denominator.
I was rather advanced in art in high school (already had sold some of my work, always had a sketch book with me.) I could have benefitted from some sort of challenging or advanced assignments, but instead I was utterly ignored. And I was BORED to death.
Oh, well, after some Pit advice and MPSIMS I must withdraw my English lessons; I passed a major faux pas in the Pit… and if you don’t find it I’m glad… but anyway, I messed up, and got a major giggle with it so who am I to say?
Post what you want and I shant say a word… for at least thirty days or until the pain of the shame drains away…
Damn you evilbeth! Damn you techchick! You bitches!
The problem (aside from the fact I am now wearing inflammable clothing, hehe) regarding the title of the post is:
“Which school subject is taught worst?” It is the entire title!
If you had said, “What is the worst subject taught in school?” I don’t think people would have a problem.
I can’t explain all the details but as a daughter of a college English professor and the sis-in-law of a Latin and language professional/college grad I have learned the difference.
Now that does not mean I don’t make mistakes but it sure strikes you funny when you see a title like this and the OP that follows. Makes you wish that the OP had a decent English teacher in high school and/or college to really go into detail about this scenario rather than the origins of the language, given my own experience.
Oh an Byz, can you come to Colorado so I can give you a big wet and sloppy kiss?
I agree that math, English, science, and (to a lesser degree history) are all poorly taught, but I think the greatest disservice is done when subjects that should be taught are not. Consider the following [ol]
[li]economics - most of the people I know don’t have a clue how a market economy works, nor even what money is.[/li][li]logic - Poirot is on the right track, but logic deserves more than just a week or two. It deserves a semester or two. Mathematical logic is sometimes taught in math class (but not where I went to school). There is much more to logic than just that, though.[/li][li]geography - User 10K is on the money.[/li][li]public speaking - I did get a semester of public speaking in high school, but I think too many students graduate without it.[/li][li]foreign languages - among subjects that are widely taught, foreign languages are the ones most likely to be taught unsatisfactorily. They should be taught earlier (kindergarten is not too early) and more intensively. Icelanders can’t graduate without displaying competence in two (or is it three) languages in addition to Icelandic. How many American students display competence in any but their native language, even after four years of French os Spanish classes? (And in too many cases, they are incompetent even in English!) [/ol][/li]There are plenty of crap courses and wasted time that can be eliminated to make room for the above. I’m thinking of gym and study hall in particular.
[/list]
My history teachers were absymal. Fortunately, I read enough to recover from their simplistic frontal assaults on world events.
Math and Science were done well. English - grammar was ok, comprehension and writing, no. I didn’t learn anything about writing, save from myself, until I went to college.
Programming was probably the most worthwhile subject I took. Too bad I didn’t make it into a career. I learned a tremendous amount of useful things from writing code under a good instructor at a young age.
First, The Exorcist and anything by Michener hardly qualify as “literature;” any more than anything by Brittney Spears or N’Stink qualifies as music. Second, have your “reference librarian” (not a literature expert, but a researcher) look up the classic text by Leslie Fiedler titled An End to Innocence, in which he discusses a homoerotic “dark other,” which includes Nigger Jim, Queequeg, and various male characters who fulfill the “darker” (both symbolically and literally) needs of the narrator. Think about Ishmael waking up entwined with Queequeg and then tell me that’s not homoerotic. Third, what Mark Twain, Melville, or whoever had in mind doesn’t count. Or don’t you allow for the subconscious? Nabokov did, as evidenced in his interviews with Alfred Appel, in which he admits that he hadn’t thought of [whatever interpretation] while writing Lolita, but it might be there anyhow.
Pure authorial intent is a dead critical style, as is pure reader-response. But there is a happy medium between the two.
